I don't know where to start...

[StuntGirl]

Please excuse this long, disjointed post. I'm sure everything I write here will be obvious, and old news to everyone here, but its a recent thing I'm struggling to deal with.

I've always considered myself a feminist, in that I believed in equal rights for women. I thought it was inherently wrong to discriminate based on gender, and I challenged it where I came across it. I have however, never been particularly active with regards to feminism. I've always known we live in a male dominated society, I've always known women can be discriminated against, I've always known women still face struggles based on simply being women and I've always challenged it where I can but for the most part I suppose I've been fairly passive. But for some reason, very recently, every small injustice has screamed out at me. I'm noticing, with increasing irritation, the unequal representation of the sexes in the media, the unequal opportunities presented to men vs women, the gaping inequality in family life.

A few weeks ago I was watching QI. It suddenly dawned on me the entire panel was male.
Just before Christmas we were watching Michael McIntyre's Comedy Roadshow, and about a quarter of the way into it I realised every performer had been male.
I recently read an article in the Guardian about female representation in film, and was introduced to the Bechdel test. I was astonished to read what a huge percentage of films don't pass this ridiculously simple test.
Last night I watched a Horizon programme on asteroids, and was saddened to notice that not a single female scientist was questioned in the programme at all.
Today we went to watch The Hobbit, which I noticed also did not pass the Bechdel test.

I commented on Facebook last night about the Horizon programme, and was absolutely expecting one or more people to make some lame sexist joke and I was proven right on the very first comment. Depressingly, out of all the comments in the discussion that followed, the one that got the most likes was that initial 'joke'.

Today after the film I commented to my brother about the Bechdel test, and was surprised to find he scoffed at me over applying this test to a book written so long ago. I tried to explain I wasn't thinking about The Hobbit in isolation, but as part of media in general. He scoffed some more, rolled his eyes, and made me feel like I was being a whiny bitch by bringing it up at all. My own brother! A man I have always considered intelligent, respectful, liberal and a feminist himself.

I think the thing that has saddened me most about my recent, well, epiphany I suppose, is the reactions from the males in my life when I raise the topic. Men I have up until now considered, like my brother, to be intelligent, respectful men who want an equal society. I guess my eyes are opening to how much that may not be true, how much they are indoctrinated themselves.

The only male who has shared my reactions has been my boyfriend. I have seriously never loved him so much as over these past few days.

I guess what I'm saying is, I need a place to discuss these issues, to understand them and speak to people who share the same beliefs. I need to find out more, and do more. Can anyone point me in the direction of some good feminist resources, or communities? Until now I've held a passive interest in feminism, and somehow suddenly that doesn't seem enough.

LRD It's ok don't shut up.

I find people often talk over my head to my husband too - tis very depressing.

That's funny about 'Brother of the more famous Jack' I haven't read it, but on the one occasion my dh came to an antenatal appt with me the mw talked to him more than me . Perhaps she was just thrilled to see a dad taking an interest??

So true, ChristmasFayre, so true.

I can't watch Embarrassing Bodies, I'm far too squeamish. But I know who Dr Christian is, and can picture him easily. I've never heard of the 2 women you mention.

I have no idea who Judi Dench is married to or who Taylor Hackford or Greg Wise are!

I agree we are on the verge of a big rise in feminism. I think women are increasingly pissed off and events like the India rape only make it worse. Also all the articles about rape / women in the media etc this year - I can't remember a time last year when they weren't in the papers.

It may be daft but I think twitter has an awful lot to do with this. It has been wonderful at giving women a campaigning voice and bringing groups of women together

I'm in the same position as running - never watched it, but I know who Dr Christian is. Not the women (didn't even know he wasn't the only presenter).

I think (hope) we are in the beginning stages of that feminist revival. There seem to be so many more of us, and things like Million Women Rise and Reclaim the Night are going strong again.

It's nice.

(I will say here, I find both Cox and Dr Christian to be smug, glib and patronizing from the little I've seen on other panel shows. But I'd always prefer to believe someone is different and nicer in real life.)

I've just told my 8yr old son son off for making his 5yr old sister bring his lunch plate out to me in the kitchen.

Start the education young

Good for you!

(Now, how much of that is just typical older sibling/younger sibling? Or is it only me who has guilty memories of telling my younger brother to do it or else? )

No doubt, there was some 'older sibling' thing going on too, LRD, you're not wrong there.

But my mum tells me that she always had to make her bed, help in the kitchen etc, and when she complained that her little brother didn't have to do this, was told 'it's because he's too young.' This went on for years - many years longer than their actual age difference iyswim, until she realised her little brother was never going to be asked to do any chores around the house! Because he was a boy, not because he was younger.

Btw, my mum has always instilled in me a very good sense of feminism and equality, and is a very strong woman.

But these habits that are instilled in childhood die hard, and she does all the housework, while dad relaxes on the sofa.

runningforthebusinheels

"I can't watch Embarrassing Bodies, I'm far too squeamish. But I know who Dr Christian is, and can picture him easily. I've never heard of the 2 women you mention."

Can I ask why you don't know who the two other women are? It's certainly not due to under representation as they all feature equally on the show. Therefore Dr. Christian gets one third of the airtime compared to his female colleagues.

---

Anyway, I read the OP with interest and whilst I fully accept that we do not live in a 100% balanced environment think that there is an element of seeing what you're looking for. In the same way that when you replace your car, you suddenly see more of the same model on the road all of a sudden. Look hard enough and you will see what you want to see in every situation i.e. confirmation bias. I'm not suggesting that feminism is some bogus ideal and that the OP is a crackpot, far from it. However, you need to be careful about all this. How does one know the intent of the producer? I don't and neither do any of us on here so why attempt to second guess whether there is some untoward bias or not? I've already posted an article, written by a female science producer, who claims that sexism isn't something she consciously thinks of so who are we to question her motives?

Admittedly QI is a predominantly male show but I would reckon that the OP would have quickly neglected the show if she had tuned into the episode where the guests were all female (Jo Brand, Sue Perkins and Liza Tarbuck).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_QI_episodes

I often watch Michael McIntyre but how does one know that the guests appearing that night were the only ones available? The same goes for Horizon. One thing worth noting is that scientists can travel quite a lot. Conferences, meetings, field trips etc. so are difficult to pin down. Perhaps the 1st choice females were at a conference as it was more important to keep abreast with progress than get 10 mins of fame?
Also, how does one know whether there was a leading female scientist with expertise in the field of interest? I know a number of leading female scientists but perhaps not with specific expertise to discuss the topics on Horizon. What I do know, however, is that they have been interviewed in the past by the media.

In fact, cast your minds back to the recent 'How to Build' series and there were a number of female engineers/scientists that were interviewed from Mclaren, Rolls Royce and Astrium.

I think it's sad that anyone should get laughed at for airing their beliefs but I would tend to scoff at the Bechdel Test too. Fiction is so called because it is exactly that. Thus it need not represent any factual or realistic events or people. Fiction has no duty to represent women/men/race without bias but to convey the intent of the author. If the author happens to be sexist, bigoted misogynist then so be it.

Can I ask why you don't know who the two other women are? It's certainly not due to under representation as they all feature equally on the show. Therefore Dr. Christian gets one third of the airtime compared to his female colleagues.

It's a bit difficult to answer that question, but I guess that's kind of the point we're trying to make!

Why does the man on the show (I'll take your word for it that they all get a third airtime) get to be famous outside the show itself, whilst the women don't?

Is it just me? When I read the article about Brian Cox wife I thought 'typical, why can't he wash his own bloody underpants, washing machines are less complicated than particle colliders...'

namechangeguy said LRD, every response so far has been a snarky, sniping comment rather than trying to discuss whatever is posted.

Whereas his dismissal of my comment (and the highly respected, intellectual novelist who prompted it) which, although an aside, was actually addressing the main point of the thread, as "middle class angst" was, of course, not at all snarky or sniping or an attempt not to discuss what was being posted.

FamilyGuy - Anyway, I read the OP with interest and whilst I fully accept that we do not live in a 100% balanced environment think that there is an element of seeing what you're looking for

No, we're really not 'seeing what we're looking for. Numerous studies have shown that women are under-represented in the media - please don't try to tell us we are imagining it.

And why stop at the media? Let's look at the more important positions of power. Women being so tragically underrepresented both in parliament, and especially in the cabinet. We are not just seeing what we want to see.

rosa, to be honest, I didn't understand that comment.

I was really enjoying this thread and my perspective (faulty as it must be) was that we were having an interesting discussion whilst gently and jokily explaining that it's nice sometimes to consider women instead of primarily men.

But, well, perhaps that was too much.

I thought you were making a really interesting point.

Separately, I found this interesting: 'Admittedly QI is a predominantly male show but I would reckon that the OP would have quickly neglected the show if she had tuned into the episode where the guests were all female (Jo Brand, Sue Perkins and Liza Tarbuck).'

Does it not occur to you that it might be we're actually discussing the fact that shows like QI are 'predominantly male'? That we're suggesting it may, perhaps, not be entirely coincidental that this is so?

I don't know what the OP does and doesn't neglect - not being her - but I must point out that her chances of tuning into a QI show where all the guests were female are vanishingly small. It's rare. That's the point. And she could never tune into a show where more than 3/5 of the panel are female, whereas she could easily tune into shows where 5/5 are male.

I am not knocking QI especially - I think it's often excellent.

But I just don't think you have a leg to stand on arguing this point.

LRD
I was addressing the fact that namechangeguy accused you of being snarky and sniping rather than addressing his points, by pointing out that he had behaved the same way.

Oh, I'm sorry, I understood your point, I meant that I just didn't understand his. It seemed odd to me given he'd begun all of this with a derailing and negative comment.

I don't really know where to start with FamilyGuy's post.

Can I ask why you don't know who the two other women are? It's certainly not due to under representation as they all feature equally on the show. Therefore Dr. Christian gets one third of the airtime compared to his female colleagues.

Isn't that my point? We went from a situation where they were all co-presenters with equal airtime, and where they were all good presenters, to one where Dr Christian is the one we mostly see popping up on panel shows and other medical programmes (I remember him a few years ago on the Christmas OBEM for example). He has in some sense become the face of the programme outside the show, reflected by the fact that the people here who haven't seen it have only heard of him, while there are three presenters. He also solo presented the one-off special on the little girl who appeared in the show whose immune system was found to be abnormal.

I would reckon that the OP would have quickly neglected the show if she had tuned into the episode where the guests were all female

Why so? I would have watched that. Is seeing just women talking boring?

Perhaps the 1st choice females were at a conference as it was more important to keep abreast with progress than get 10 mins of fame? Ha! If you knew how badly women are represented at conferences in many fields relative even to their numbers in their respective fields you would, like me, be rolling around on the floor at this idea.

I really think there is a limit to how long you can tie yourself in knots saying "but perhaps the women just weren't available that day" before you have to concede that this is a systemic phenomenon.

'Admittedly QI is a predominantly male show but I would reckon that the OP would have quickly neglected the show if she had tuned into the episode where the guests were all female (Jo Brand, Sue Perkins and Liza Tarbuck).'

What does that mean? Was that particular show rubbish?

Well I've a bit of time on my hands - well I haven't really, I should be tidying and starting dinner.

But this talk of QI has interested me, so I've done a little totting up on the M/F panellists and:

In 2003: Series A: 4/12 shows, and the pilot were all male. The remaining 8 had 2 male guests and 1 female. 4 of these 8 shows featured Jo Brand.

Role forward to 2012 and: there was indeed 1 all female show (Jo Brand, Sue PErkins & Lisa Tarbuck). There were 3 all-male shows. 9 shows featured 2 men and 1 woman. 3 shows had 1 man and 2 women.

So, do I detect a slight improvement in the female participation on QI in the decade it has been running? Possibly. But even in the 2012 series, there were still a total of 30 men ( not including the male presenter) and only 18 women.

Interesting - because this is a show on the BBC - which is notoriously left leaning and 'women-friendly'. And so, I think this shows that people saying women are under-represented in the media are not "seeing what they are looking for."

Btw, FamilyGuy you can convert your links so that they're clickable - makes it easier.

Should say roll forward to 2012

Interesting that the BBC should be perceived as 'women-friendly' - I've never particularly felt that it was. Left-leaning yes, but that particular brand of lefty liberalism that wilfully refuses to examine its own misogyny.

You could well be right, there ChristmasFayre, but I would think of them as more 'women friendly' than, say, Rupert Murdoch's lot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that women may be under-represented (I don't really notice TBH ) but my point was that I found it incredibly difficult to make the connection given the OP's specific examples.

The trouble is, the link I gave (www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/03/women-science-tv) had a female producer explaining how ensuring an even balanced cast doesn't come into her decision making. Thus when I read the OP and then do some basic research it is difficult for me to make any cast iron conclusions.

Also, from my experience of watching various programmes i.e. Rough Science and the 'How to Make...' series, I also gave solid examples where females were either interviewed (more or less) equally or made up at least 50% of the cast.

Irrespective of your opinions I am almost 100% certain that you cannot categorically say that the producer of QI specifically selects men over women for sexist reasons. Nether can you say that for any other of the examples given (Horizon or Michael McIntyre). I certainly can't so could not make the giant leap and say that there is a sexist agenda present. This is what I mean about 'confirmation bias' i.e. seeing something without actually knowing the facts. We may suspect but without evidence then our assumptions are just that. Personally I don't like to get upset over what may be.

The same goes for Dr Christian. I have no idea why he's more of a celebrity than Dr's Dawn or Pixie so wouldn't like to pass comment. However, other people clearly know better.

If I were to hold my own TV chat show and came up with a celebrity lineup then it may or may not consist of a 50/50 split. If there were more men than women it certainly wouldn't be because I am sexist or that women have no place on my show. Any under-representation would be completely innocent but it would be unnaceptable to some on here. God forbid that I may also be under-representing trans/gays/lesbians/Chinese/Blacks/Asians except I am not racist or homophobic etc. Therefore are you suggesting that I would have to talk to people that I wouldn't want to talk to just to ensure that there is a 50/50 cast of females/males? Would this make for entertaining viewing? I doubt it.

Re: the OP neglecting the QI show with an all female cast, I meant she would possibly have neglected the inclusion of females from her opinion that the show is completely sexist. Having worked in research I'm well aware that people use specific examples to support a hypothesis and have been known to discard any examples that contradict. When I did my own research into the show it was clear to me that the show wasn't completely sexist, hence my comment. For sure, it is biased toward males but like I said previously, unless you know 100% that the intent of the producer is untoward then I don't believe it's worth getting worried about it.

I don't think anyone has said the under-representation of women is due to producers thinking 'women belong in the kitchen, not on my show'. The problem is that straight, white and male are often the default settings for anyone on TV, and it shouldn't be, because the population is not overwhelmingly straight, white and especially not male. Suggesting it's a coincidence that men are greatly over-represented in the media seems at best very naive.